The difficult part of the climate debate is that everyone is so damn sure — on both sides of the issue. While there is no question the world is warmer today than it was 100 years ago, there are legitimate questions about the relative importance of several possible causes.
The human production of CO2 may be one cause, but how relatively important is it? No one knows for certain. Only 500 years ago we were in an ice age. Why? No one knows for certain. Did the sun emit less radiation? Did the solar system travel through a dusty part of the galaxy? Did volcanoes spew dust particles? Was there a different mix of plant life that more effectively shaded the ground? Were ocean currents better able to bring cold water in contact with air? Are any of these likely to happen again, soon?
No one knows, but if any did happen, would a repeat of the ice age be more or less devastating than global warming?
The history of the earth involves constant and profound change. For mankind to attempt to hold the earth’s temperature exactly where it is, seems like a fool’s mission, supported by human hubris.
And is it a worthwhile effort? On balance, would global warming be more or less beneficial than global cooling or even no change?
I’ve read of many possible negative global warming effects: flooding, changes in rain patterns, loss of polar bears and other species, spread of certain diseases. But what about the possible benefits: Longer growing seasons, increased habitat for certain species, opening of ice-bound waterways, antidote to natural cooling effects. A return to the greatest evolutionary explosion in history? Who has made the evaluation?
The human species evolved through much warmer periods than this, and through colder periods. We did better during the warmer periods. Would that be true, again?
Without answers to these questions, what makes everyone so damn sure?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com
No comments:
Post a Comment